Wakilii

Muhamood Wanula Busulwa v Intestate Finance Co.& 2 oers (Civil Suit No. 1195 Of 1998 ) (Civil Suit No. 1195 of 1998)

High Court · [1999] UGHC 21 · 1999 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application under Order 9 rule 9 and Order 48 rules 1 and 3 CPR to set aside interlocutory judgment entered against applicant for alleged failure to enter appearance
Decision
Interlocutory judgment set aside with costs to applicant

Observed later treatment

No later-treatment classification is recorded for this judgment.

Citator coverage is limited to judgments in the Wakilii corpus and source-matched treatment records. Absence of a signal is not an assertion that the case remains good law.

AI-generated summary. This summary was generated by AI from the full text of the judgment. It may contain errors or omissions—always read the source judgment before relying on it.

Holding

The High Court set aside an interlocutory judgment entered against the defendants where the affidavit of service relied upon by the Registrar was defective for failure to state the place where it was sworn, in breach of section 8 of the Oaths Act. The omission rendered the affidavit incurably defective and the Registrar was wrong to rely on it to enter judgment.

Outcome

Interlocutory judgment set aside with costs to applicant

Facts

The plaintiff obtained an interlocutory judgment against the defendants on 8 January 1999 for failure to enter appearance. The second defendant, Robina Karungi (referred to in the application as applicant), learned of the judgment through her lawyers who saw the cause list fixing a miscellaneous application. She applied to set aside the judgment, averring that she was never served with court summons and did not know the process server. She denied that the signature on the summons acknowledging service was hers. The affidavit of service was sworn by Alfred M. Kahangire on 31 December 1998, stating he served the second defendant at Karen Stores on Ben Kiwanuka Street.

Issues

  1. Whether the interlocutory judgment should be set aside on grounds that the applicant was not properly served with court summons.
  2. Whether the affidavit of service sworn by the process server was valid and properly executed in compliance with the Oaths Act.

Orders

  • Interlocutory judgment entered on 8th January 1999 set aside.
  • Costs awarded to the applicant/second defendant.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Service of Process — Affidavit of Service — Formal Requirements
An affidavit of service that fails to state the place where it was sworn, as required by section 8 of the Oaths Act, is incurably defective and cannot be relied upon by the court to enter judgment.
Evidence — Affidavits — Jurat Requirements — Commissioner for Oaths
Every Commissioner for Oaths must state truly in the jurat at what place and on what date an affidavit is taken or made, as mandated by section 8 of the Oaths Act, and failure to comply with this requirement renders the affidavit defective.
Civil Procedure — Interlocutory Judgment — Setting Aside — Defective Service
Where an interlocutory judgment has been entered on the basis of a defective affidavit of service that does not comply with mandatory statutory requirements, the court will set aside the judgment.

Legislation cited (5)

Cases cited (1)

  • Kenfreight (U) Ltd v Henry Sebunya (Miscellaneous Application No. 353 of 1998)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.

Muhamood Wanula Busulwa v Intestate Finance Co.& 2 oers (Civil Suit No. 1195 Of 1998 ) (Civil Suit No. 1195 of 1998) [1999] UGHC 21 (28 May 1999)
Source: this page presents Wakilii’s issue analysis and metadata for a publicly reported Ugandan judgment. Any AI-generated summary is marked as such. Judgment text is sourced from the Uganda Legal Information Institute (ulii.org). Wakilii is not affiliated with ULII.